[jlogajan]

I FIRMLY believe that had Brenda not been out "floozing" that night that her daughter would be alive now. She contributed inactively in her daughter's abduction.

What if she had been out at a prayer meeting or volunteering at the local shelter. Would she still be guilty in your eyes? You people are pathetic. It was the killer who is responsible. Period.

[merry10]

Thank you Jlogajan! You rock!

[MizSterious]

Yes, the killer was responsible. But if the parents let him in, they will also be held responsible. Their lifestyle may well have had a direct bearing on the fate of this child. And by the way, prayer meetings aren't held in the wee hours of the morning in bars.

[BunnySlippers]

What if she had been out at a prayer meeting or volunteering at the local shelter. Would she still be guilty in your eyes? You people are pathetic. It was the killer who is responsible. Period.

Oh, you're pathetic. I'm not passing judgement on swinging but the fact that Mom may have advertised that the door is open ... and "you're welcome in" (at midnight). I'd feel the same way if Brenda was a nun. I couldn't care less if they swing ... although I would submit it is better done BEFORE having children or AFTER they leave the home.

You will certainly not agree ... but most people who swing may be be well adjusted sexually but there is a higher probability that they are not. Who needs these people opening doors in the middle of the night?

But then, there's no explaining your POV.

[JudyB1938]

You're so right. I can't believe how people are trouncing on those poor parents. Much of the stuff that condemners are putting out has not been confirmed - it's merely internet gossip. At least that's what I read from another poster, and I believe it.

I know what it's like to lose a child, a grandchild, AND a great-grandchild. God please have mercy on the VD's and give them the assurance that their child is with you. Please let this horrible thing bring them to you. Amen.

[Illbay]

Fuggedabaddit!

These are the same people who will tell you that Andrea Yates isn't responsible for what she did, that it's her HUSBAND--idiot that he is--that is responsible!

These people, albeit unwittingly, have fallen for the "victimization" line strung out by Alan Dershowitz, Johnny Cochran and a host of media-star trail lawyers that have us questioning the meaning of guilt.

(Well, some of us anyway. I don't you and I have any problem figuring out who to pin it on).

[marshmallow]

What if she had been out at a prayer meeting or volunteering at the local shelter.

The problem was not her being out of the house. It was or may have been what she brought back, and the purpose for which she brought these people back.

Would she still be guilty in your eyes?

Specify. Guilty of what? Murder? No, of course not. The killer carried out the act. Guilty of irresponsible behavior which facilitated the perp's plan? Certainly.

You people are pathetic. It was the killer who is responsible. Period.

There are lots of thieves out there who would like to come into my house and carry off my stereo and television. Are you saying that if I leave the door unlocked and it happens that I'm robbed, I bear no responsibility?

Pathetic is you, my friend.

[FreeLibertarian]

Agreed

[GovernmentShrinker]

Obviously it's the killer who's responsible. But it doesn't speak well of the parents' concern for their children that both parents were too preoccupied with their own activities that evening to keep an eye out for the children's safety. I don't think most people here would be a whole lot happier with them if they'd been holding an all night prayer meeting in the garage, with the back door unlocked for the benefit of invited participants, and no one making sure the 3 sleeping children were protected from potential intruders.